Ralph Regula

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) to close the debate.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for yielding me this time. I have said this to ``my chairman'' many times, that he is the epitome of everything that is good about citizenship in these United States. He has been everything that we have heard. I will not enlarge upon it. But I will make an additional comment, and that is that he has had a wonderful helpmate in his wife Addie. They have really been a great team. Many times she has been at the hearings and we love her as much as we do you, Sid. We carry the message to her that we have appreciated her, and I am sure she has been a wonderful influence on your life.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would point out this will generate $500 million over five years, and as my colleagues can see, it is strongly supported. The gentleman mentioned 80 percent stays in the park, and the other 20 percent goes to parks such as Golden Gate where we do not have a fee, where there is not a single collection point, but it all stays in the park or the forest system, National Wildlife Refuge, and or BLM. All of the agencies support it; the public supports it. I think the program is absolutely very constructive, and I would strongly urge the Members to defeat this amendment.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me read the list of people and organizations that support the fee program: National Parks and Conservation Association; Natural Resources Defense Council; National Trust for Historic Preservation; the Secretary of the Interior. And I quote Secretary Babbitt: ``We believe that the strong support for the fee program is because most receipts remain in the recreation area in which they are collected to be used to improve visitor services and protect resources.'' He goes on to say that this is a great program. The Secretary of Agriculture states: ``I firmly believe that changes in the program would be detrimental to the recreation fee demonstration program.'' Again, the Department of Interior, the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service: ``The demonstration program begun in 1996 has been a tremendous success.'' Again from the Department of Interior: ``All the agencies strongly support this program. I have spoken to superintendents in a number of parks. They are very strongly in support of it.'' I asked the superintendents, how does the public feel? They said, ``We have no complaints.'' People think this is one of the great bargains to come in when they know that the money is staying in the park. That is the important feature here. Under the old law, the fees that were collected, before we changed the law as part of creating the demonstration program, the fees collected went to Treasury instead of staying in the park. Now they stay in the park, and they are using them to enhance the visitor experience, improve the camp sites, fix the sanitary facilities, things that are important to visitors. Mr. Chairman, our delegation recently visited Muir Woods and the superintendent told me many people say, ``That is not enough. Here, take a couple of extra dollars as part of the fee program.'' This is working wonderfully well.

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, I am aware of the amendment. On this side of the aisle we will accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill through page 123, line 14, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I understand she will withdraw the amendment. We are faced with many needs and limited resources. We have done the best we can with what we have available.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. REGULA

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. To the debate focus, I would point out to the gentleman from California that it is not any old purpose. It is whatever the Secretary of Agriculture, who is one of our former colleagues, determines it be used for. And what the gentleman is saying is that he has no confidence in the Secretary of Agriculture. But aside from all that, this amendment takes out the ability to manage these funds. So suddenly we have a sizable chunk of money, probably $150 million or more, with no ability to manage it. It is just there. The Treasury will be happy. They will have the money. And instead of spending it on timber stand improvement, wildlife habitat management, inland fisheries habitat management, anadromous fisheries habitat, threatened, or endangered species, watershed improvements, instead of that, the money goes to the Treasury. Now, we recognize what the gentleman is saying, that this is a problem. We are trying to get it under control. We have reduced the amount that can be expended on indirect charges from 35 percent to 25 percent. The authorizing committee is addressing this problem and is trying to get it on budget where it belongs and eliminate the problems that have happened. We have to phase it out over a period of 3 years simply because there are a number of projects that are underway that need to be completed. We have tried very strenuously, and the gentleman from Washington is part of the subcommittee, to make accountability a part of our goal. I do not disagree with the gentleman from California. We want accountability; he wants accountability. But I do not think just striking out the management money, without having a mechanism to allow these programs to be finished, to allow the transfer, is good legislating. We are sympathetic to the gentleman's goals and would try to address those as much as possible in conference, but I would have to resist the amendment at this point. It is not a good way to approach it.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, again reclaiming my time, I would like to say to the gentleman that if there is any way in the conference process that we can make some changes to make this fund totally accountable, I am very much for that, because I think accountability is an essential element of any program that we manage. And since we have to appropriate the funds, it should be accountable to those of us that serve on these respective committees. I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), I would like to work with him to achieve that objective. But I would be reluctant to support the amendment under these circumstances without having some additional changes.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to use the money for environmental objectives, and to do that there has to be some mechanism to manage the fund. I think the amendment just takes away the mechanism without addressing the issue of how we expend the funds. I think we really need to get it on budget and manage it more correctly.

Mr. REGULA. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) is that we would propose to reduce this 25 percent to 20, which will be 10 percent less than we are using now. The problem is that if we adopt this amendment, we leave the K-V Fund out there without any direction. That fund is used for habitat improvement, reforestation, and a lot of very good environmental issues. I am most reluctant to, but I would have to characterize this amendment as being antienvironment, and I do not think that the gentleman from California wants to do that. Mr. Chairman, I would agree that we should get this on budget and put us in charge as a Congress, in administering these funds on a line item basis. But I do not think it is good management, as proposed in this amendment, to take away the ability to manage the program and leave the program out there like a ship without a rudder. These programs are very important environmentally for reforestation, for habitat improvement, for other legitimate forest health issues. Mr. Chairman, I would like to work with the gentleman from California in getting this on budget, reducing the amount that is going to administration, and ensure that the funding actually achieves the environmental objectives that are very much a part of it.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if we do not accept the amendment, it will allow more tribes to participate, and I do not think it will penalize the tribes represented by the gentleman from Mississippi. If we accept the amendment, or if the amendment is passed and the $26 million is left in, it will be a great windfall for the tribes who are already getting money, because those that would be getting it now will get the $26 million divided among them and the other tribes will still be out in the cold. It is not a matter of changing the law. This has been going on a long time in the BIA. It is a matter of distributing the money equitably. Unfortunately the administration, as I said earlier, ducked the issue. In fact, they funded Indian health $147 million less than last year, which is a mystery to me, given the testimony that the ranking member heard, as did I, that there are a lot of health problems in the Indian Community. But I do not think in fairness we want to give a big windfall to the tribes that are now getting funds with the $26 million we put in. We want everybody to get in on the mix.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield, that letter speaks to the Senate bill, which is a zero. It is not referring to the $26 million that we put in our bill. I think one of the problems here is that you are trying to address problems, situations, created by the Senate bill at zero, and not recognizing that we have taken, I think, a very progressive step.

Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman is absolutely right. The problem with this amendment is it will take care of those who got to the head of the line, and those that were slow getting up to the line will get cut out. What we are trying to do is to make it fair for everybody, and we feel that the $26 million will allow those that were at the head of the line to continue to get what they were receiving, or very close to it, and will help the others to go to self-determination.